sentientsynth
New member
Of course not. It means you are always walking, and never getting any closer.
Sounds a little like a song I know. When we've been there 10,000 years... we've no less days to sing God's praise then when we've first begun.sentientsynth said:Of course not. It means you are always walking, and never getting any closer.
I agree. Even a "bare-bones" definition of time such as "before, now, and next" leads to this quandry. Balder, it appears to me that you have a fine grasp of this problem.Balder said:If God (or God's experience) is imagined as a point traveling along a line called "temporal duration," then it is indeed hard to explain how God could have arrived at a particular point on that line (say, the pivotal point of Creation), given the infinite distance he has to cross in order to do so.
Wouldn't he be infinitely old, no matter at what particular point you determined to determine his age? Not denying that he would "get older." But he would be infinitely old already, wouldn't he?I believe I've touched on this with Clete before, but a God understood in these terms must also be understood to be getting older, and thus also being subject to learning, development, and evolution. God is now 6,000 to 10,000 years older than when he created the world.
The atemporality of God raises interesting questions as well, I think.I'm not saying these things are necessarily wrong, but they raise some interesting questions.
And that is what you get for attempting to befriend Jim Hilston. It was a mistake on my part. I should have known better after-all it is Jim's MO.Rutabaga said:It's surprising that Knight alludes to the One on One discussion he had with Hilston regarding Calvinism and immutability. I encourage anyone who hasn't done so already to head over there and evaluate it for him or herself. Like me, you may have a hard time seeing "silliness" in Hilston's posts. I don't mention this to defend Hilston--he seems capable of that himself; rather, that One on One is a sort of 'Greatest Hits' of TOL Open View argumentation, revealing many of its most glaring weaknesses--in both style and content--in one brief (and abbreviated?) discussion.
Rutabaga said:Open View argumentation, revealing many of its most glaring weaknesses
Yes, that's a good point.sentientsynth said:Wouldn't [God] be infinitely old, no matter at what particular point you determined to determine his age? Not denying that he would "get older." But he would be infinitely old already, wouldn't he?
I agree. Timelessness and eternal temporality are both hard to grasp. I personally think they are both aspects of a larger picture, rather than representing a necessary either/or choice.sentientsynth said:The atemporality of God raises interesting questions as well, I think.
Yes, I agree with him that "time" is a fundamental precondition to experience as we know and understand it. It is so essential, in fact, that our logic, which is predicated on cause and effect and sequentiality (which are both implicated in "time") breaks down when we try to imagine going beyond it. If we say time "began," that immediately implies a prior state or condition, which brings time into the picture again; if we say that time has infinite extension, or that events have always been happening, that makes the present state of affairs hard to grasp, since it has an infinite history behind it which presumably could not have been exhausted yet.sentientsynth said:Balder, you've read Kant. Do you agree with Kant that time is a precondition to experience as we, finite creatures understand it? I agree with him. To me, a state of timelessness is inconceivable, that is, incomprehensible, to us. Do you agree with this?
Bob Hill said:Time is just before, now, and next.
Thank you for proving my point. I don't expect you to understand how you did so but c'est la vie!sentientsynth said:Zeno's paradox assumes that an infinite series will not converge. Using the methods of calculus, we can prove that it can.
Before an object can travel a given distance d, it must travel a distance d/2. In order to travel d/2, it must travel d/4, etc. Since this sequence goes on forever, it therefore appears that the distance d cannot be traveled. The resolution of the paradox awaited calculus and the proof that infinite geometric series such as sum_(i==1)^(infty)(1/2)^i==1 can converge, so that the infinite number of "half-steps" needed is balanced by the increasingly short amount of time needed to traverse the distances.
Souce
Therefore a finite distance may be crossed.
An infinite distance is a different box of crackers.
SS
I understand why. You expect that this problem with eternity will be resolved eventually, just as Zeno's Paradox was. As SS points out, it is a somewhat more difficult problem than Zeno's Paradox. It has puzzled the best minds out there, in science as well as philosophy and theology. But I agree with you -- that doesn't mean it can't be resolved.Clete said:Thank you for proving my point. I don't expect you to understand how you did so but c'est la vie!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nice. :up:Balder said:I understand why. You expect that this problem with eternity will be resolved eventually, just as Zeno's Paradox was. As SS points out, it is a somewhat more difficult problem than Zeno's Paradox. It has puzzled the best minds out there, in science as well as philosophy and theology. But I agree with you -- that doesn't mean it can't be resolved.
Nor should we be surprised if it does not. The point being we don't know whether we'll be radically surprised or not and in the mean time we are bound by honor and intellectual honesty to go with that which is the most logically coherent world view available. Whether or not that world view is or is not open theism remains a point of debate but this paradox of yours, by your own admition, certainly does not falsify open theism and rejecting open theism on the basis of this paradox is only a matter of trading one problem for a another worse one (I say worse because without open theism you not only have to explain what timelessness means but you also have to redefine justice, love, righteousness, etc.).To me, however, the problem is significant enough that we should not be surprised if its resolution takes more of a radical shift in understanding than the resolution of Zeno's Paradox did.
Yes, becasue the word "when" in your last sentence implies time. Do you see how you beg the question by saying "When God does not move, time stands still."?themuzicman said:Is there something wrong with God being in control of His OWN temporality? When God moves, there is before and after. When God does not move, time stands still.
Yes because being implies duration and sequence (i.e. time).Is there a problem with God creating a universe that has its own time, and continues to come into being as that time moves foward, determined by the laws of the universe God created, God's will, and the will of the free will agents He created?
Indeed it is too hard for God. God cannot do the logically obsurd. He cannot be in a place that does not exist, like outside of time, for example. Indeed the very notion of existing outside of time is self-contradictory because, as I said, being implies time.Because if there isn't, then God is not bound by time, neither ours nor His, and yet the future has not yet knowable, because future moements have not yet come to exist.
Are the rest of you saying that this is too hard for God?
Calvinists believe God has feelings! And anger, and sorrow.Bob Hill said:... and His ability to have feelings
Would that be regret for what he had done? Wouldn't that be falling short of an intent, though? And missing the mark? Isn't that "harmartia," the Biblical definition of sin?... remorse ...
Isaiah 49:23 "Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who hope in me will not be disappointed."... and even disappointment.
It is actually based on a number of examples, which have other interpretations, which are then used to overturn plain general statements in Scripture! I'm sorry to say.Open Theism theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God.
So then why did God send Jonah, and spoil his own plan, since he later (Open Theism does tell us) had to change his mind, when the Ninevites repented? Now God can act in such a way as to spoil his own plan himself...We Open Theists also believe God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do...
This Calvinist doesn't believe that God makes every decision, there might be freedom to choose, within God's will, and thus God would remain in complete control, and yet there would be freedom.It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.
lee_merrill said:Calvinists believe God has feelings! And anger, and sorrow.
Blessings,
Lee